Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//smesh.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//smesh-5.1.2.2-9.svn55.fc20.src.rpm Description: A complete OpenCascade based MESH framework. NOTE: Fortran support (f2c) has been disabled. If it is needed please open a bug against the smesh component at: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6846389
the BR: cmake28 should be used only on when %rhel <= 6, otherwise it will break build on EL-7 where regular cmake is 2.8.x
Thanks, I don't know where to go for visibility on what is available in EPEL 7 so I wasn't sure if cmake was updated to 2.8 there or not.
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/rhel/rc/7/ is the RC for RHEL-7, Server and Server-optional are used in EPEL buildroots, for EPEL-7 just use "koji list-tagged epel7" or view the repos on web
Drive-by comments on the specfile: - the %description refers to the rpmfusion bug tracker - why is f2c disabled? (I don't have an issue with that, but would like an explanatory comment in the specfile ) - like Dan said, the cmake28 issue Otherwise looks good. Build log looks clean.
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #4) > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/rhel/rc/7/ is the RC for RHEL-7, Server and > Server-optional are used in EPEL buildroots, for EPEL-7 just use "koji > list-tagged epel7" or view the repos on web Thanks for the tip! (In reply to John Morris from comment #5) > Drive-by comments on the specfile: > > - the %description refers to the rpmfusion bug tracker Yeah, I used fedora-create-review and didn't catch that until it was done. I'll fix. > - why is f2c disabled? (I don't have an issue with that, but would like an > explanatory comment in the specfile ) I've slept to many times since then but I think it broke compilation and unless someone was going to use it, I didn't think it was worth the trouble since it's an optional dependency.
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #2) > the BR: cmake28 should be used only on when %rhel <= 6, otherwise it will > break build on EL-7 where regular cmake is 2.8.x Ick... I had to do this to keep from requiring cmake28 for Fedora: # Set rhel to some value if not specific (i.e. Fedora) to make conditional work. %{!?rhel: %global rhel 100} # Use a newer version of cmake on EL 6. %if 0%{?rhel} <= 6 %global cmake %cmake28 %endif Since I have no plans to build for EL <6, can I drop the "<" and just use "=" so I don't have to use this ugly workaround?
How about combining those? %if 0%{?rhel}{!?rhel:100} <= 6 Or use a logical operator %if 0%{?rhel} <= 6 && 0%{?fedora} == 0
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #6) > (In reply to John Morris from comment #5) > > - why is f2c disabled? (I don't have an issue with that, but would like an > > explanatory comment in the specfile ) > > I've slept to many times since then but I think it broke compilation and > unless someone was going to use it, I didn't think it was worth the trouble > since it's an optional dependency. That's worth noting in the specfile. ;)
I don't know why the rhel/fedora one didn't want to work right but this did the trick: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6
New spec and SRPM uploaded... Since these were minor nits I didn't bump the release so the same links will work.
John, are you going to take this one?
Yes, working on it today. I'm trying to set up a bodhi override for OCE to scratch build in koji, but the bodhi tool wants me to have commit privs to OCE. Can you set these up for me? for i in fc20 fc21 el6 el7; do bodhi --buildroot-override OCE-0.15-2.$i --notes="for smesh pkg review" done Alternatively, if you're willing to have a sporadically deadbeat co-maintainer for OCE, I'll volunteer.
I did it for F20 and el6, rawhide goes straight in and it looks like epel7 is too right now because I was not able to generate a bodhi update for it.
All builds pass [1,2,3,4]. fedora-review output pasted below. Issues follow. I'll only insist on the first one. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. *** License should be lgpl v2.1, but listed as GPLv2 [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in smesh-doc *** Do doc packages really need this? I see it glossed over in other reviews [5]. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. *** Justification for smesh-5.1.2.2-pi_to_m_pi.patch? Seems obvious to me, but might be worth mentioning its author. Rpmlint: smesh.i686: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib/libDriver.so.5.1 *** Looks OK to me; am I missing something? $ldd libDriver.so.5.1 | grep libc libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb740c000) smesh.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/smesh/LICENCE.lgpl.txt *** Notify upstream http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address (Other rpmlint errors are bogus) [1] f20 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6853066 [2] f21 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6853070 [3] el6 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6853074 [4] el7 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6853078 [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089425#c3 --------------------------------------------- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in smesh-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: smesh-5.1.2.2-9.svn55.fc21.i686.rpm smesh-doc-5.1.2.2-9.svn55.fc21.noarch.rpm smesh-devel-5.1.2.2-9.svn55.fc21.i686.rpm smesh-5.1.2.2-9.svn55.fc21.src.rpm smesh.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fortran -> FORTRAN, Fort ran, Fort-ran smesh.i686: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib/libDriver.so.5.1 smesh.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/smesh/LICENCE.lgpl.txt smesh-devel.i686: W: no-documentation smesh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fortran -> FORTRAN, Fort ran, Fort-ran smesh.src: W: invalid-url Source0: smesh-5.1.2.2.svn55.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint smesh-doc smesh smesh-devel smesh.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fortran -> FORTRAN, Fort ran, Fort-ran smesh.i686: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib/libDriver.so.5.1 smesh.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/smesh/LICENCE.lgpl.txt smesh-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- smesh-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): smesh smesh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libDriver.so.5.1 libDriverDAT.so.5.1 libDriverSTL.so.5.1 libDriverUNV.so.5.1 libSMDS.so.5.1 libSMESH.so.5.1 libSMESHDS.so.5.1 libTKAdvTools.so.8 libTKBRep.so.8 libTKG2d.so.8 libTKG3d.so.8 libTKGeomAlgo.so.8 libTKGeomBase.so.8 libTKMath.so.8 libTKMeshVS.so.8 libTKPrim.so.8 libTKShHealing.so.8 libTKTopAlgo.so.8 libTKernel.so.8 libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgfortran.so.3 libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1) rtld(GNU_HASH) smesh-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libDriver.so.5.1 libDriverDAT.so.5.1 libDriverSTL.so.5.1 libDriverUNV.so.5.1 libSMDS.so.5.1 libSMESH.so.5.1 libSMESHDS.so.5.1 libStdMeshers.so.5.1 smesh(x86-32) Provides -------- smesh-doc: smesh-doc smesh: libDriver.so.5.1 libDriverDAT.so.5.1 libDriverSTL.so.5.1 libDriverUNV.so.5.1 libSMDS.so.5.1 libSMESH.so.5.1 libSMESHDS.so.5.1 libStdMeshers.so.5.1 smesh smesh(x86-32) smesh-devel: smesh-devel smesh-devel(x86-32) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -rn smesh-5.1.2.2-9.svn55.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to John Morris from comment #15) > All builds pass [1,2,3,4]. > > fedora-review output pasted below. Issues follow. I'll only insist on the > first one. > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla > upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for > licenses manually. > *** License should be lgpl v2.1, but listed as GPLv2 Don't know how that one got missed through the RPM Fusion review... oh well. > [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in smesh-doc > *** Do doc packages really need this? I see it glossed over in other > reviews [5]. No, bad things happen when you create an arch dependency from a noarch package. It only applies if both packages are arch packages. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > *** Justification for smesh-5.1.2.2-pi_to_m_pi.patch? Seems obvious to me, > but might be worth mentioning its author. I'm the author and I'm not worried too much. Ideally it would go upstream but it's not particularly active. In this case I think the patch name is sufficient. > Rpmlint: > smesh.i686: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib/libDriver.so.5.1 > *** Looks OK to me; am I missing something? > $ldd libDriver.so.5.1 | grep libc > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb740c000) Might be a false positive there... rpmlint -I library-not-linked-against-libc didn't help and it hasn't been a problem in the past so I'm tempted to ignore it for now. > smesh.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/smesh/LICENCE.lgpl.txt > *** Notify upstream > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address As mentioned, upstream is not active but I'll see if I can find a bug tracker.
Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/smesh.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20.src.rpm
Looks great! APPROVED Feel free to add me as co-maintainer.
Thanks! What's your FAS account name?
Oops, zultron. Funny, I hadn't thought about the fact that bz isn't attached to FAS.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: smesh Short Description: OpenCascade based MESH framework Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/salomesmesh/ Owners: hobbes1069 zultron Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20,freecad-0.13-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20,freecad-0.13-6.fc20
freecad-0.13-6.el6,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.el6,OCE-0.15-3.el6.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freecad-0.13-6.el6,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.el6,OCE-0.15-3.el6.1
Package OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1, smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20, freecad-0.13-6.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1 smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20 freecad-0.13-6.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-6805/OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1,smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20,freecad-0.13-6.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
freecad-0.13-7.fc20, OCE-0.15-3.fc20.1, smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
smesh-5.1.2.2-10.svn55.el6, OCE-0.15-3.el6.1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.